User Vod abusing DT position (petty red-rating with provable lies as a reason)

[Anduck]

User Vod has given me the following trust rating: "Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical. Also admitted to me in PM he lied about this matter."

I tried to send him a private message, trying to discuss this in private, but he has blocked me. So I take it public then.

I tried to settle this matter with him in a way that's good for both of us, and fair and ethical in all ways I can think of.
In Vod's current trust rating towards me, he is blatantly lying about our private discussion OR he misunderstands what I am saying. If he wants, he can publish our private conversation to prove me right.

In any case, such behavior shouldn't be done especially by someone in the default trust list. Lately it seems like people need to kiss default trust list members' butts to be able to operate in these forums. Obviously it shouldn't be so.

I am posting this here, because I can't reach him privately, he is abusing his position, and he is escalating a non-issue beyond ridiculous levels.

Edit (20180603):
I suggest reading the whole thread, or at least https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg38658847#msg38658847

[1715692777]

1715692777

[1715692777]

1715692777

[1715692777]

1715692777

[Welsh]

Obviously, I have no knowledge of your private messages, and can't speak for what has been exchanged there, but bidding on your own auction is pointless. What's the point of having a auction start at a low price if you are just going to bid if you don't like the price it's currently going for.

Now in the future if you ever do run another auction no one is going to trust anyone bidding on that auction just in case you are bidding with alt accounts. Yeah, you used your main account on the previous auction but, that's besides the point. Having an hidden reserve price isn't really the issue, as quite a few auctions actually do this. Although, I agree that it's best to state your reserve price or just start the auction off at the reserve price.

You claimed before that you, and Vod have ran into problems before this whole thing, but Vod is entirely in his rights here to issue a negative feedback if he thinks it's justified. You might argue that you did it with your main account, and avoided using a hidden alternate account, but the principle is the same. You bid on your own auction, and prevented a user from winning an auction. It's not like it didn't have any bids, and you changed the starting bid. You actually bid on your own auction whilst it was in full flow. Well, actually it was close to finishing.

Do you not feel it was unfair to the person who was winning that auction to be outbid by it's auctioneer?

[Anduck]

Obviously, I have no knowledge of your private messages, and can't speak for what has been exchanged there, but bidding on your own auction is pointless. What's the point of having a auction start at a low price if you are just going to bid if you don't like the price it's currently going for.

Now in the future if you ever do run another auction no one is going to trust anyone bidding on that auction just in case you are bidding with alt accounts. Yeah, you used your main account on the previous auction but, that's besides the point. Having an hidden reserve price isn't really the issue, as quite a few auctions actually do this. Although, I agree that it's best to state your reserve price or just start the auction off at the reserve price.

You claimed before that you, and Vod have ran into problems before this whole thing, but Vod is entirely in his rights here to issue a negative feedback if he thinks it's justified. You might argue that you did it with your main account, and avoided using a hidden alternate account, but the principle is the same. You bid on your own auction, and prevented a user from winning an auction. It's not like it didn't have any bids, and you changed the starting bid. You actually bid on your own auction whilst it was in full flow. Well, actually it was close to finishing.

Do you not feel it was unfair to the person who was winning that auction to be outbid by it's auctioneer?

This has been hashed elsewhere, on these forums. I've later learned that such auction styles are uncommon in these forums, and will in the future do as is the norm here.

Anyway, this thread is not about that. This thread is about Vod and his rating towards me, and my inability to discuss this with him in private.

Edit:
In particular, "Also admitted to me in PM he lied about this matter" is false and the main reason I take this public. He can rate me negatively if he doesn't trust me, but lying in the rating is not OK.

Edit2:
About the auction bidding case: Auction rules are public and same for everyone. It doesn't matter who bids as the rules indeed are same for all. But in these forums, it's uncommon and apparently seen as a bad thing for auctioneer to bid on the item too. In my country at least, it's a common thing that auctioneer bids on the item if he wants to. I don't see it as unfair to bid on an auction, no matter who's auctioning or whose item/property is being sold. But I do see that it's good to state these things clearly in auctions around here, as the norm here is different from the norm of IRL auctions I'm familiar of.

[Quickseller]

What ended up happening with that coin? Did you sell it to TheNewAnon? Or did you end up not selling it at all?

You shouldn’t be bidding on your own auction if you don’t disclose this possibility ahead of time.

Vods refusal to discuss his ratings shows his maturity and character.

[Anduck]

What ended up happening with that coin? Did you sell it to TheNewAnon? Or did you end up not selling it at all?

Sold to the highest bidder.

You shouldn’t be bidding on your own auction if you don’t disclose this possibility ahead of time.

I've already learned that is the norm in these forums.

Vods refusal to discuss his ratings shows his maturity and character.

He brought it up.

I'm more than willing to publish our private conversations if he gives me the permission. It would prove publicly that I am right.

[Quickseller]

Unless you agreed for the conversation to be private, or the messages were encrypted to your PGP key, I would not consider the messages to be private.

I would not stand up for someone essentially backing out of their actions. I would suggest resolving the issue by offering to sell the coin to the otherwise high bidder and leave the offer open for a “reasonable” amount of time. Or you can otherwise try to settle with TheNewAnon in a mutually acceptable way.

[eddie13]

I see you were the "auctioneer" but it isn't clear to me whose coin it was..

If an auctioneer is selling something for someone else I wouldn't see a problem with him bidding on it with intentions to buy it himself..

The only auctions where I see people bidding on their own stuff would be charity auctions, but it's not really your stuff anymore since you already donated it.
Or if it's part of a shared estate that you want to buy a specific part of to keep for yourself..

In real estate tax auctions they have language that makes it clear that you cannot buy back your own property or bid on behalf of whoever lost the property..

In any case I don't see OP was lying or being very shady. Maybe he is a piss poor auctioneer and bidders should be aware of what they are getting into, but a neutral should suffice for that purpose I think..
Their has been plenty of exposure of the fact, awareness, so people know, and a neutral should do to provide reference..

I don't think this warrants account destroying red trust from DT (forever), but then again I don't know about these PMs and often people get their red trust rightfully solidified by the way they act when confronted about issues like this, they do stupid stuff that deserves red trust regardless of the original issue..

Maybe Vod could agree to change the red trust to a neutral in 1/3/6 months or something providing their are no other outstanding issues..
I think that should accomplish the job of letting him know that he did something controversial and punish him enough to make him plenty aware of his mistake without fully destroying him FOREVER..

I somewhat see the point of leaving Vod retaliatory red trust for "calling me a scammer" but really the only way to resolve this is to reason with vod so I hope OP you don't/haven't got into too much of a personal spat as to dig the hole even deeper, which happens in borderline cases and gets people wrecked..

[Anduck]

I see you were the "auctioneer" but it isn't clear to me whose coin it was..

If an auctioneer is selling something for someone else I wouldn't see a problem with him bidding on it with intentions to buy it himself..

The only auctions where I see people bidding on their own stuff would be charity auctions, but it's not really your stuff anymore since you already donated it.
Or if it's part of a shared estate that you want to buy a specific part of to keep for yourself..

In real estate tax auctions they have language that makes it clear that you cannot buy back your own property or bid on behalf of whoever lost the property..

In any case I don't see OP was lying or being very shady. Maybe he is a piss poor auctioneer and bidders should be aware of what they are getting into, but a neutral should suffice for that purpose I think..
Their has been plenty of exposure of the fact, awareness, so people know, and a neutral should do to provide reference..

I don't think this warrants account destroying red trust from DT (forever), but then again I don't know about these PMs and often people get their red trust rightfully solidified by the way they act when confronted about issues like this, they do stupid stuff that deserves red trust regardless of the original issue..

Maybe Vod could agree to change the red trust to a neutral in 1/3/6 months or something providing their are no other outstanding issues..
I think that should accomplish the job of letting him know that he did something controversial and punish him enough to make him plenty aware of his mistake without fully destroying him FOREVER..

I somewhat see the point of leaving Vod retaliatory red trust for "calling me a scammer" but really the only way to resolve this is to reason with vod so I hope OP you don't/haven't got into too much of a personal spat as to dig the hole even deeper, which happens in borderline cases and gets people wrecked..

Vod had neutral rating towards me, where he called me a scammer. I rated him red because I don't trust someone who calls me a scammer. After some months, he contacted me. We had a discussion. He changed his rating to red after our discussion & blocked me. Could someone inform Vod about this thread, and maybe ask him if he's willing to share our private discussion?

I'll address rest of the post if/when Vod shows up and provides me his permission to publish our private discussion. It would be useless to address your post before that.

Edit (29th May '18):

The auction in question happened in March 2016. I had done plenty of auctions before that, and have done some after that. I wasn't aware of that auctioneer must not bid on the auction in these forums. For auctions in general, I see it differently, and certainly not as scamming or shady at all. Auction rules are same for all, including the auctioneer. There are different auction styles around the world and Internet. In my country it's perfectly normal that auctioneer can bid on the auctioned item if he wants. I learned that it's very uncommon in these forums, and as I've said elsewhere, will not do it again. By the way, Vod later told me that he doesn't see my actions as untrustworthy either. (I guess his opinion turned 100% opposite now when it conveniently suits him as he needs a "valid" reason to red-rate me.)

[Vod]

Edit:
In particular, "Also admitted to me in PM he lied about this matter" is false and the main reason I take this public. He can rate me negatively if he doesn't trust me, but lying in the rating is not OK.

You previously stated (in posts that have since been deleted???) that your feedback was not retaliatory, and you actually didn't trust me.  You lied as per the bolded part of the Prayer Message exchange below, where you clearly offer to remove your feedback if I remove mine.

Clearly it was retaliatory, and you lied to the community when you said it wasn't.   You clearly post (as per the underlined part) that people don't need to be aware of your actual feeling towards me - basically saying you call me a scammer to get your red trust removed. This is additional dishonesty with the bidding on your own auction BS...

I blocked you because there is no point in arguing such an open and shut case.  :/

It doesn't matter if it's neutral, green or red when it's saying i'm a scammer. How about we both remove our ratings towards each other and be done with it?

Ah.  Until this message, I believed your post that the feedback was not retaliatory, and you just didn't trust me.  :/

This is the case, but there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you. It's up to you. I think it'd be alright to stop the games and remove these ratings.

[endlasuresh]

The rating was given to you in April and you started the thread today what you were doing all these days?
The reference thread is one year old can't getting why VOD bring old thread for justice?

[Anduck]

Edit:
In particular, "Also admitted to me in PM he lied about this matter" is false and the main reason I take this public. He can rate me negatively if he doesn't trust me, but lying in the rating is not OK.

You previously stated (in posts that have since been deleted???) that your feedback was not retaliatory, and you actually didn't trust me.  You lied as per the bolded part of the Prayer Message exchange below, where you clearly offer to remove your feedback if I remove mine.

I've not deleted any post.

Timeline:
You give me a neutral rating stating that I'm a scammer.
I give you a red rating stating that I do not trust Vod because he calls me a scammer, and I don't trust people who call me a scammer.
Months pass.
You change your rating to red and add an additional note where you lie about me.

I do not trust you. But I don't need to announce it to everyone, hence I'd be willing to remove my rating towards you.

Clearly it was retaliatory, and you lied to the community when you said it wasn't.   You clearly post (as per the underlined part) that people don't need to be aware of your actual feeling towards me - basically saying you call me a scammer to get your red trust removed. This is additional dishonesty with the bidding on your own auction BS...

I blocked you because there is no point in arguing such an open and shut case.  :/

Can you elaborate where and how I am calling you a scammer? I never did that, so I'm very interested in seeing a quote.

Can I post the whole story, ie. our private discussion? You only posted a part of it. You left out an important part. Why?

You are abusing your position here.

[Vod]

Can I post the whole story, ie. our private discussion? You only posted a part of it. You left out an important part. Why?

Because it's open and shut.  There is no gray area here - you scammed an auction, then you lied about the reason you left me feedback.

Go ahead and post your prayer messages. 

[Vod]

I've not deleted any post.

My apologies Anduck; another user helped me locate the post in question:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2535142.msg25936463#msg25936463

[Anduck]

Can I post the whole story, ie. our private discussion? You only posted a part of it. You left out an important part. Why?

Because it's open and shut.  There is no gray area here - you scammed an auction, then you lied about the reason you left me feedback.

Go ahead and post your prayer messages. 

I actually asked Theymos (forum owner) if the thinks that auctioneer bidding on the auctioned item is considered bad, and if I recall right, he didn't see it as a bad thing at all. So how about you keep your scam accusations more objective? It's simply a matter of different auction norms, as you should very well know by now as we've hashed this over and over for a long time now. Stop being intellectually dishonest.

Here's the private discussion between me and Vod:

Congrats on getting onto default trust.

You currently have a negative on me for something I took back months ago.

Is it your intention to keep it on there?

Vod

Ignore my last message - I had set Default Trust to level 4 for BPIP testing.

I'm sad though that you keep that up there, even after I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy to me and removed the comment.

Ignore my last message - I had set Default Trust to level 4 for BPIP testing.

I'm sad though that you keep that up there, even after I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy to me and removed the comment.

Hi.

I would love to remove this cause for your sadness. You are still calling me a scammer in your trust rating towards me.

-A

Ignore my last message - I had set Default Trust to level 4 for BPIP testing.

I'm sad though that you keep that up there, even after I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy to me and removed the comment.

Hi.

I would love to remove this cause for your sadness. You are still calling me a scammer in your trust rating towards me.

-A

Ah.  I have made it neutral.  You have made yours negative.  Once of us will have to change it.  :/

Ignore my last message - I had set Default Trust to level 4 for BPIP testing.

I'm sad though that you keep that up there, even after I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy to me and removed the comment.

Hi.

I would love to remove this cause for your sadness. You are still calling me a scammer in your trust rating towards me.

-A

Ah.  I have made it neutral.  You have made yours negative.  Once of us will have to change it.  :/

It doesn't matter if it's neutral, green or red when it's saying i'm a scammer. How about we both remove our ratings towards each other and be done with it?

It doesn't matter if it's neutral, green or red when it's saying i'm a scammer. How about we both remove our ratings towards each other and be done with it?

Ah.  Until this message, I believed your post that the feedback was not retaliatory, and you just didn't trust me.  :/

It doesn't matter if it's neutral, green or red when it's saying i'm a scammer. How about we both remove our ratings towards each other and be done with it?

Ah.  Until this message, I believed your post that the feedback was not retaliatory, and you just didn't trust me.  :/

This is the case, but there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you. It's up to you. I think it'd be alright to stop the games and remove these ratings.

As you can see,
Vod started a discussion with me about the ratings. Vod noticed my red rating towards him would affect him (while he thought I was on the default trust list.)
Vod suggested that ratings to be changed.
Tone changed after he realized I was not on the Default trust list.
Vod admits that he doesn't think I did anything wrong. ("I'm sad though that you keep that up there, even after I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy to me and removed the comment.")
I proposed that we both remove our ratings then, because Vod apparently doesn't see my actions as untrustworthy anymore and I don't necessarily have the need to announce the world how much I trust Vod.
I guess this pissed him off. (After all, I did tell him that I don't trust him.) After this, he changed his rating towards me as red and blocked me.

I'd still be fine with us both removing our ratings, reasoning being the same as earlier. If suggesting this is so so bad, then so be it. Note, that Vod initially suggested rating change to me.

Default trust list members should not wreck others accounts based on lies, like Vod does here.

Vods rating towards me as of today:

"Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical. Also admitted to me in PM he lied about this matter."

"Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical." << As you can see from the private discussion, Vod admitted he doesn't think that what I did was untrustworthy. Why is he saying that in the rating? Did his opinion change because even after he changed his, I didn't change mine (about him being untrustworthy in my eyes because of calling people scammer without basis)?

"Also admitted to me in PM he lied about this matter." << I've not lied about anything. You can see our private conversation. There's no such thing in there.

[Vod]

As you can see,
Vod started a discussion with me about the ratings. Vod noticed my red rating towards him would affect him (while he thought I was on the default trust list.)
Vod suggested that ratings to be changed.
Tone changed after he realized I was not on the Default trust list.
Vod admits that he doesn't think I did anything wrong. ("I'm sad though that you keep that up there, even after I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy to me and removed the comment.")
I proposed that we both remove our ratings then, because Vod apparently doesn't see my actions as untrustworthy anymore and I don't necessarily have the need to announce the world how much I trust Vod.
I guess this pissed him off. (After all, I did tell him that I don't trust him.) After this, he changed his rating towards me as red and blocked me.

I was willing to keep it as a neutral, but when you admitted via PM that the feedback was retaliatory and you actually DID trust me, I had to act on the dishonesty.   The new dishonestly, in addition to the old dishonesty, is what led to the fresh trust.

I indicated this to you here:

Ah.  Until this message, I believed your post that the feedback was not retaliatory, and you just didn't trust me.  :/

You confirmed it here:

This is the case, but there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you.

I understand you view it differently, but it's natural for us to view ourselves as infallible.

[Anduck]

As you can see,
Vod started a discussion with me about the ratings. Vod noticed my red rating towards him would affect him (while he thought I was on the default trust list.)
Vod suggested that ratings to be changed.
Tone changed after he realized I was not on the Default trust list.
Vod admits that he doesn't think I did anything wrong. ("I'm sad though that you keep that up there, even after I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy to me and removed the comment.")
I proposed that we both remove our ratings then, because Vod apparently doesn't see my actions as untrustworthy anymore and I don't necessarily have the need to announce the world how much I trust Vod.
I guess this pissed him off. (After all, I did tell him that I don't trust him.) After this, he changed his rating towards me as red and blocked me.

I was willing to keep it as a neutral, but when you admitted via PM that the feedback was retaliatory and you actually DID trust me, I had to act on the dishonesty.   The new dishonestly, in addition to the old dishonesty, is what led to the fresh trust.

I indicated this to you here:

Ah.  Until this message, I believed your post that the feedback was not retaliatory, and you just didn't trust me.  :/

You confirmed it here:

This is the case, but there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you.

I understand you view it differently, but it's natural for us to view ourselves as infallible.

Let's not twist the history.

You were NOT willing to keep it as neutral. You were asking me if I will change my rating, and if I didn't, you would negatively (red) rate me. That's what you did. ("Ah.  I have made it neutral.  You have made yours negative.  Once of us will have to change it.  :/")

On the other hand, if you're being honest here, this is becoming more clear now. Apparently you misunderstood me when I said "This is the case". The case being that I don't trust you and feedback was not retaliatory. But you apparently misunderstood me here. I might've used confusing or wrong grammar, sorry.

If you are being honest here, and did indeed misunderstood me, it still boggles me how you didn't bother to ask me whether you had understood it right, but just outright blocked me and stopped our conversation. And red-rated me of course. It's like you're looking for vague reasons to abuse your DTL position. By looking at your ratings, it looks like I'm not alone. Granted, that most of them are likely scammers raging at you. However, now I've been "Vod'd" too.

As you say, you "have to act on the dishonesty". Maybe you should red rate yourself now after being caught for dishonesty? You lie about me (You said you think I did nothing wrong, yet your rating towards me states otherwise), you lie here about me calling you a scammer (I never called you scammer), you tell everyone how I am so bad for asking to drop this stupidity (Yet you threatened to red rate me unless I changed my rating), what else?

[Anduck]

I indicated this to you here:

Ah.  Until this message, I believed your post that the feedback was not retaliatory, and you just didn't trust me.  :/

You confirmed it here:

This is the case, but there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you.

If you think about this carefully, you'll maybe see that "my trust" obviously refers to "my negative trust". There's no other way.

In other words, "there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you" means "I don't need to show the world my distrust towards you".

[Anduck]

So, Vod, let's sum it up.

Your current rating towards me: "Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical. Also admitted to me in PM he lied about this matter."
Your private message to me: "I'm sad though that you keep that up there, even after I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy to me and removed the comment."

("that" refers to my negative rating towards Vod.)

So you admitted in private that you don't believe I scammed anyone and at the same time you call me a scammer in your trust rating.
You either lied to me in private or you lie to everyone in your trust rating. You're busted for lying, but could you still choose one?

Also, I've not admitted "lying about this matter" in our private conversation or in public. Everyone can verify this. I've not lied to you. You've lied to me. You can't turn this upside down. Sadly you're in the DT, which gives you the option to abuse which you've taken. I'm also very aware that others fear voicing themselves because Vod can wreck their accounts too.

[Vod]

I've not lied to you. You've lied to me.

For some reason, I thought of this touching moment (dirty dancing clip)

Anduck, I react to change.  "Ah.  Until this message...";  I received new information after your quote that changed my trust.

Your prayer messages conflicted with your public posts enough to flag a response.

You last communicated with me on April 19, 2018, 05:32:54 PM
I changed trust on April 23, 2018
You complained about it May 16, 2018, 07:45:02 AM

Infinite honors, I rest my case.

I'm also very aware that others fear voicing themselves because Vod can wreck their accounts too.

Let this post be open forum for anyone concerned with my religion.  I'm always looking to change myself for the better.

[Anduck]

I've not lied to you. You've lied to me.

For some reason, I thought of this touching moment (dirty dancing clip)

Anduck, I react to change.  "Ah.  Until this message...";  I received new information after your quote that changed my trust.

Your prayer messages conflicted with your public posts enough to flag a response.

You last communicated with me on April 19, 2018, 05:32:54 PM
I changed trust on April 23, 2018
You complained about it May 16, 2018, 07:45:02 AM

Infinite honors, I rest my case.

I'm also very aware that others fear voicing themselves because Vod can wreck their accounts too.

Let this post be open forum for anyone concerned with my religion.  I'm always looking to change myself for the better.

Anduck, I react to change.  "Ah.  Until this message...";  I received new information after your quote that changed my trust.

You are misunderstanding my words. I've already corrected you several times. So now you're misunderstanding me on purpose. Why? My guess: it conveniently enables you to proceed with your threat to red rate me unless I changed my rating.

You asked me to change my rating towards you, and if I did not, you would rate me red. This is what you told me, and is public for anyone to verify. You threatened to abuse your position unless I changed my rating of you.

You "received new information" or you simply did what you said would do if I didn't change my rating?

I believe your "new information" means you misunderstand me on purpose to proceed with your threat of abusing trust system. It's all very clear.

Your prayer messages conflicted with your public posts enough to flag a response.

There is no conflict -- no matter how hard you tell everyone there is such. If you claim something, prove it too. You're making a fool of yourself here.

As a summary, here's all the abusing done by Vod so far:

Calls me a scammer and rates me red. (Rating: "Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical.")
After a while he changes the rating to neutral. Rating text stays the same.
I rate him red. (Rating: "Calls me a scammer. Can't trust a guy who does that.")
Later Vod messages to me that he doesn't believe I am scammer. ("I'm sad though that you keep that up there, even after I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy to me and removed the comment." -Vod. Emphasis by me.)
Vod asks me to remove my red rating and states that if I do not, he will rate me red. I tell him that I think we should both remove our ratings, because Vod states he believes I am not a scammer, and if he removes the rating where he calls me a scammer, I can remove my rating towards him where I state that I don't trust Vod because he calls me a scammer. I tell him that regardless of ratings, I distrust him.
Vod blocks me and rates me red, with an additional lie in the rating text: (Rating: "Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical. Also admitted to me in PM he lied about this matter.")

Vod wanted to escalate this to this ridiculous level. I can't see it as anything but abuse: he threats to abuse trust system (and proceeds after threat), lies to me and others, and wrecks my account by leveraging his DT position.

I see that Vod has nothing to comment on his lies. Reminder: Anyone can verify this and conclude that Vod is lying and abusing his position. Our private conversations are public, our rating history is public. Vod claims to understand my words to mean something they logically cannot mean. I explained this in previous messages. Vod has been corrected several times, yet he still shows to understand it in his own illogical way which conveniently supports his threat to abuse trust system.

Anyone can rate anyone how they like, but I think that DT members do have an additional responsibility to not wreck others trust ratings like Vod does here. And if such abusing occurs, community and other DT members should act on it. Tons of good deeds do not make good a bad deed, Vod. I can see you're making a joke of this. It's not a joke.

[figmentofmyass]

this does come across a bit spiteful, or perhaps grounded in misunderstanding. i think the red trust should be reserved for scammers. do you really think it's necessary here, Vod?

as for the original feedback, it doesn't seem tag-worthy. publicly bidding on your own auction is basically an undisclosed reserve. does it explicitly violate any forum rules? if anything, just deserves a warning to disclose a reserve in the OP. admittedly i only glanced through the reference thread, so correct me if i'm wrong.....

[Anduck]

this does come across a bit spiteful, or perhaps grounded in misunderstanding. i think the red trust should be reserved for scammers. do you really think it's necessary here, Vod?

as for the original feedback, it doesn't seem tag-worthy. publicly bidding on your own auction is basically an undisclosed reserve. does it explicitly violate any forum rules? if anything, just deserves a warning to disclose a reserve in the OP. admittedly i only glanced through the reference thread, so correct me if i'm wrong.....

I agree it's grounded on misunderstanding.

Publicly bidding on auctioneers own auction does not violate forum rules. I also asked several people what they think about this: some thought it's wrong, some thought it's alright. E.g. forum owner theymos said he thinks it's alright. Auctioneer bidding on the auctioned item is perfectly normal -- auction rules are same for all. But in these forums auctions the norm is to not do that, which I did not know back then 2-3 years ago when this happened. As I've stated many times, I will do as is the norm in these forums and have done so in all my auctions after the said auction. Going against the norm is NOT SCAMMING. In my country, it's the norm that auctioneer can bid on auctioned items. It really does vary between cultures, auctioned items, auctioneers, IRL/Internet etc. There are all sorts of norms and auction styles around the world. We can discuss this more in another thread -- this thread is about Vod abusing his position. Vod already admitted he doesn't feel I did anything untrustworthy regarding the said auction. To me it looks like he is just now using it as an excuse to abuse his position.

I think that lining me with scammers is outrageous and unfair. It is abuse done by Vod. I would need to lick Vods ass to stop this abuse from happening? I was told that it would be the easiest way to get him off me. Not going to happen. Vod must face what's to be faced. I know others are afraid / unwilling to voice themselves about this, because nobody wants to get into this shit storm. There's a significant risk of wrecked trust.

[Quickseller]

As you can see,
Vod started a discussion with me about the ratings. Vod noticed my red rating towards him would affect him (while he thought I was on the default trust list.)
Vod suggested that ratings to be changed.
Tone changed after he realized I was not on the Default trust list.
Vod admits that he doesn't think I did anything wrong. ("I'm sad though that you keep that up there, even after I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy to me and removed the comment.")
I proposed that we both remove our ratings then, because Vod apparently doesn't see my actions as untrustworthy anymore and I don't necessarily have the need to announce the world how much I trust Vod.
I guess this pissed him off. (After all, I did tell him that I don't trust him.) After this, he changed his rating towards me as red and blocked me.

I was willing to keep it as a neutral, but when you admitted via PM that the feedback was retaliatory and you actually DID trust me, I had to act on the dishonesty.   The new dishonestly, in addition to the old dishonesty, is what led to the fresh trust.

This logic is a good example of your intelligence and ability to apply morals to situations. Or lack thereof.

Bidding on your own auction is different from having a hidden reserve because the potential to bid on the auction was not previously disclosed.

[xSplit]

He just shitposted my reputation as well for asking a loan "without" a collateral in his opinion, nevertheless it covered 70% of the loan in my opinion and anyway even if it wasn't he has no right to do so, there are people asking for loans without collaterals as well and it seems to be allowed. His arrogance in playing god/policeman made my account worth less for no reason.

I did not ask anything to him and even tried to fix this by closing the thread he did not like but I got no answers so far. I've sent him three pms and I know he is online because he did it just few moments ago.

[Anduck]

As this is somewhat hard to follow, I try to clear it up once again.

Ratings & events timeline:
Dec '17:      Vod rates Anduck, red rating, stating ”Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical.”
Dec '17:      Anduck rates Vod, red rating, stating ”Calls me a scammer. Can't trust a guy who does that.”
Dec '17?:      Vod changes rating from red to neutral, stating ”Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical.”
Apr 23, '18:   Vod blocks Anduck
Apr 23, '18:    Vod changes rating from neutral to red, stating: ”Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical. Also admitted to me in PM he lied about this matter.”

References, messages ordered by time:
1:
Apr 23, '18:   Vod messages Anduck: ”You currently have a negative on me for something I took back months ago.  Is it your intention to keep it on there?”
Apr 23, '18:   Vod messages Anduck: ”I'm sad though that you keep that up there, even after I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy to me and removed the comment.”
               The event Vod refers to is an auction that was held by Anduck in March 2016. This auction was over two years ago.
               Vod clearly says that he believes Anduck did nothing untrustworthy regarding that auction.

2:
Apr 23, '18:   Anduck messages Vod: ”I would love to remove this cause for your sadness. You are still calling me a scammer in your trust rating towards me.”
Apr 23, '18:   Vod messages Anduck: ”Ah.  I have made it neutral.  You have made yours negative.  Once of us will have to change it.  :/”
               Vod threatens Anduck that he will red-rate Anduck if Anduck doesn’t change his rating.
3:
Apr 23, '18:   Anduck messages Vod: ”How about we both remove our ratings towards each other and be done with it?”

4:
Apr 23, '18:   Vod messages Anduck: ”Ah.  Until this message, I believed your post that the feedback was not retaliatory, and you just didn't trust me.  :/”
               Vod misunderstands. Anduck has not said or hinted anything about his trust towards Vod being changed, or about the feedback in question being retaliatory.

5:
Apr 23, '18:   Anduck messages Vod: ”This is the case, but there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you. It's up to you. I think it'd be alright to stop the games and remove these ratings.”
               Anduck corrects Vods misunderstanding: the trust towards him has NOT changed. (Anduck still distrusts Vod)
               The only logical way to understand this message is that "this is the case" is an answer to "you just didn't trust me".
               This is so, because it is elaborated in sentence "there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you", trust being publicly negative at the time.
               Compare:
               "I don't trust you, but there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you" == LOGICAL. "my trust" refers to the NEGATIVE trust or distrust at the time.
               "I trust you, but there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you" == ILLOGICAL as trust is NEGATIVE/DISTRUST at the time. This also wouldn't make sense anyway.


This thread events opened up:

May 16, '18:   Anduck makes a public thread about Vods trust system abuse.
May 16, '18:   Vod states that Anduck lied about his rating: ”You previously stated [...] that your feedback was not retaliatory, and you actually didn't trust me.  You lied [...], where you clearly offer to remove your feedback if I remove mine.”
               Vod accuses Anduck of lying. "Lie" being that Anduck asked Vod to drop the ratings all together [3]. That is not a lie. That is a proposal.
               Apparently Vod sees such proposals as "lying". Note: Vod threatened (or proposed?) Anduck earlier [2] that if Anduck didn’t change his rating, Vod would red-rate Anduck.

May 16, '18:   Vod states that Anduck lied about his rating: ”Clearly it was retaliatory, and you lied to the community when you said it wasn't.”
               Vod was already corrected about his misunderstanding [5 and in this thread], yet he still continues with this false argument.

May 16, '18:   Vod states that Anduck calls Vod a scammer: ”You clearly post […] that people don't need to be aware of your actual feeling towards me - basically saying you call me a scammer to get your red trust removed.”
               This doesn’t make any sense. Also, Anduck hasn’t and isn’t calling Vod a scammer.
   
May 16, '18:    Vod states: ”This is additional dishonesty with the bidding on your own auction BS...”
               This ”dishonesty” is based on Vods earlier provably false claims about Anduck and his actions.
               Vod mentions the auction case as dishonesty. However, Vod said he doesn't believe there was anything untrustworthy done [1]. Clear contradiction.
               
May 16, '18:   Vod states that Anduck scammed an auction: ”There is no gray area here - you scammed an auction, then you lied about the reason you left me feedback.”
               Vod said he doesn't believe there was anything untrustworthy done [1]. Now he says Anduck scammed it. Clear contradiction.
               No lying happened either. Vod sticks to his illogical misunderstanding even though he was already corrected several times [5 and in the thread].

May 16, '18:   Vod states: ”I was willing to keep it as a neutral, but when you admitted via PM that the feedback was retaliatory and you actually DID trust me, I had to act on the dishonesty.”
               This contradicts what actually provably happened.
               First of all, Vod threatened Anduck [2] which is far from "willing to keep it as neutral".
               Second, "when you admitted via PM", no such admitting happened as everyone can see.
               Third, Vod again brings up how Anduck "actually DID trust" -- this illogical misunderstanding by Vod has been corrected to Vod several times [5].
                  
Vods actions are based on these false claims done by him. At this point, it can’t be seen as Vod misunderstanding, because he was corrected several times earlier (regarding both claims).
There are clear contradictions in his arguments and claims, in addition to pure lies about me and what provably happened.
I still would like to believe that he's not doing this on purpose, but it's becoming harder and harder to believe that. This sort of abuse done by DT member should be stopped.

[Quickseller]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I don't think Vod is going to remove his rating.

I would suggest contacting HostFat, dooglus, and Cyrus regarding the rating, and they might remove from from their trust lists. Unfortunately Vod has had many problems in the past, including leaving negative ratings for personal reasons but neither dooglus nor Cyrus has removed Vod as a result. HostFat has excluded Vod in the past, I am not entirely sure why he removed the exclusion.

[digaran]

@Vod, your pride is your enemy. if you think that you have made a mistake no matter how slight, please change your feedback and make it right.

[xSplit]

As this is somewhat hard to follow, I try to clear it up once again.

Ratings & events timeline:
Dec '17:      Vod rates Anduck, red rating, stating ”Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical.”
Dec '17:      Anduck rates Vod, red rating, stating ”Calls me a scammer. Can't trust a guy who does that.”
Dec '17?:      Vod changes rating from red to neutral, stating ”Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical.”
Apr 23, '18:   Vod blocks Anduck
Apr 23, '18:    Vod changes rating from neutral to red, stating: ”Scammed other users by bidding on his own auction. States he does not believe this is unethical. Also admitted to me in PM he lied about this matter.”

References, messages ordered by time:
1:
Apr 23, '18:   Vod messages Anduck: ”You currently have a negative on me for something I took back months ago.  Is it your intention to keep it on there?”
Apr 23, '18:   Vod messages Anduck: ”I'm sad though that you keep that up there, even after I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy to me and removed the comment.”
               The event Vod refers to is an auction that was held by Anduck in March 2016. This auction was over two years ago.
               Vod clearly says that he believes Anduck did nothing untrustworthy regarding that auction.

2:
Apr 23, '18:   Anduck messages Vod: ”I would love to remove this cause for your sadness. You are still calling me a scammer in your trust rating towards me.”
Apr 23, '18:   Vod messages Anduck: ”Ah.  I have made it neutral.  You have made yours negative.  Once of us will have to change it.  :/”
               Vod threatens Anduck that he will red-rate Anduck if Anduck doesn’t change his rating.
3:
Apr 23, '18:   Anduck messages Vod: ”How about we both remove our ratings towards each other and be done with it?”

4:
Apr 23, '18:   Vod messages Anduck: ”Ah.  Until this message, I believed your post that the feedback was not retaliatory, and you just didn't trust me.  :/”
               Vod misunderstands. Anduck has not said or hinted anything about his trust towards Vod being changed, or about the feedback in question being retaliatory.

5:
Apr 23, '18:   Anduck messages Vod: ”This is the case, but there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you. It's up to you. I think it'd be alright to stop the games and remove these ratings.”
               Anduck corrects Vods misunderstanding: the trust towards him has NOT changed. (Anduck still distrusts Vod)
               The only logical way to understand this message is that "this is the case" is an answer to "you just didn't trust me".
               This is so, because it is elaborated in sentence "there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you", trust being publicly negative at the time.
               Compare:
               "I don't trust you, but there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you" == LOGICAL. "my trust" refers to the NEGATIVE trust or distrust at the time.
               "I trust you, but there's no need for everyone else to learn about my trust towards you" == ILLOGICAL as trust is NEGATIVE/DISTRUST at the time. This also wouldn't make sense anyway.


This thread events opened up:

May 16, '18:   Anduck makes a public thread about Vods trust system abuse.
May 16, '18:   Vod states that Anduck lied about his rating: ”You previously stated [...] that your feedback was not retaliatory, and you actually didn't trust me.  You lied [...], where you clearly offer to remove your feedback if I remove mine.”
               Vod accuses Anduck of lying. "Lie" being that Anduck asked Vod to drop the ratings all together [3]. That is not a lie. That is a proposal.
               Apparently Vod sees such proposals as "lying". Note: Vod threatened (or proposed?) Anduck earlier [2] that if Anduck didn’t change his rating, Vod would red-rate Anduck.

May 16, '18:   Vod states that Anduck lied about his rating: ”Clearly it was retaliatory, and you lied to the community when you said it wasn't.”
               Vod was already corrected about his misunderstanding [5 and in this thread], yet he still continues with this false argument.

May 16, '18:   Vod states that Anduck calls Vod a scammer: ”You clearly post […] that people don't need to be aware of your actual feeling towards me - basically saying you call me a scammer to get your red trust removed.”
               This doesn’t make any sense. Also, Anduck hasn’t and isn’t calling Vod a scammer.
   
May 16, '18:    Vod states: ”This is additional dishonesty with the bidding on your own auction BS...”
               This ”dishonesty” is based on Vods earlier provably false claims about Anduck and his actions.
               Vod mentions the auction case as dishonesty. However, Vod said he doesn't believe there was anything untrustworthy done [1]. Clear contradiction.
               
May 16, '18:   Vod states that Anduck scammed an auction: ”There is no gray area here - you scammed an auction, then you lied about the reason you left me feedback.”
               Vod said he doesn't believe there was anything untrustworthy done [1]. Now he says Anduck scammed it. Clear contradiction.
               No lying happened either. Vod sticks to his illogical misunderstanding even though he was already corrected several times [5 and in the thread].

May 16, '18:   Vod states: ”I was willing to keep it as a neutral, but when you admitted via PM that the feedback was retaliatory and you actually DID trust me, I had to act on the dishonesty.”
               This contradicts what actually provably happened.
               First of all, Vod threatened Anduck [2] which is far from "willing to keep it as neutral".
               Second, "when you admitted via PM", no such admitting happened as everyone can see.
               Third, Vod again brings up how Anduck "actually DID trust" -- this illogical misunderstanding by Vod has been corrected to Vod several times [5].
                  
Vods actions are based on these false claims done by him. At this point, it can’t be seen as Vod misunderstanding, because he was corrected several times earlier (regarding both claims).
There are clear contradictions in his arguments and claims, in addition to pure lies about me and what provably happened.
I still would like to believe that he's not doing this on purpose, but it's becoming harder and harder to believe that. This sort of abuse done by DT member should be stopped.

Bumping this for visibility as it seems to be a worse case than mine, incredible his arrogance

[digaran]

The guy seems like a clown with nothing better to do than looking for reasons to hand out negative trust. And on top of that, a lot of people are stroking him, giving him more confidence and making it go on

You have got some balls .
Newbie asking for no collateral loan can't be taken seriously.

[Anduck]

There are some off-topic replies in this thread. Please stay on topic.

Also bumping this thread. Again: I know many are afraid to voice their opinions and many are very frustrated that these things happen. It's not good. Even when this particular case is logical and obvious in the end, but longsome and somewhat complex to get a grip off. Community is the judge here -- that's how forum staff apparently want it to be.

[TheButterZone]

After eBay codified the global norm, how can anyone claim with a straight face that it's not unethical?

Not allowed
    Bidding on your own items with another account
 
Why does eBay have this policy?
Shill bidding is unfair to buyers and it's illegal in many places in the world. We have this policy to discourage shill bidding and to make it clear what can happen when people don't follow these guidelines.

[Anduck]

After eBay codified the global norm, how can anyone claim with a straight face that it's not unethical?

Not allowed
    Bidding on your own items with another account
 
Why does eBay have this policy?
Shill bidding is unfair to buyers and it's illegal in many places in the world. We have this policy to discourage shill bidding and to make it clear what can happen when people don't follow these guidelines.

Another account is something else than the same account. Also, this thread has nothing to do with any auction. Read this thread to understand that Vod blackmailed me and as the result when I did not bend, he proceeded with rating me red, and his rating contains provable lies. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg40906371#msg40906371.

[TheButterZone]

After eBay codified the global norm, how can anyone claim with a straight face that it's not unethical?

Not allowed
    Bidding on your own items with another account
 
Why does eBay have this policy?
Shill bidding is unfair to buyers and it's illegal in many places in the world. We have this policy to discourage shill bidding and to make it clear what can happen when people don't follow these guidelines.

Another account is something else than the same account. Also, this thread has nothing to do with any auction.

Distinction without any real difference, as eBay blocks the auctioneer from using their own account to shill bid. The same person is the same as the same person. Auction threads aren't editable for a reason; the auctioneer brazenly bidding on their own auction is in effect, revising their own minimum starting bid/opening bid around the edit lock. Changing the terms of an auction mid-auction is unethical & in many jurisdictions illegal.

If you had set a reserve amount & decided to reveal it mid-auction, that would not be a shill bid, but you should specify that you're revealing it & not just put an amount that could be confused with a shill bid. Oh, and for fairness, I encrypt my reserve amounts in the OP so they can be revealed later without being able to be changed arbitrarily mid-auction.

What thread has something to do with this auction?

ETA: The only way this makes a lick of sense is if you were publicly authorized to auctioneer a third party's property - unlike the Bitcointalk usual, people auctioning their own property. You can't bid to acquire something you already own. If the third party doesn't object to you being the winning bidder, I suppose you must have already discussed the most you were willing to pay in a private sale & they rejected your offer, thinking they could get more at auction despite a lower starting bid, in which case you'd effectively agreed to a secret reserve bid/price floor.

CONTEXT!

[xolxol]

I do receive red tags for using this jr.member account which is my alts,a true dickhead and a total moron to this forum.
Abusing the trust system like what the pharmacist is doing,they want to dominate this forum for the sake of money.

Look at his feedback to me, he doesnt trust me for using this account.Arguing to this moron will cause your account to have reds he does want to clean this forum but he is the first abuser here.

[Vod]

Look at his feedback to me, he doesnt trust me for using this account.

I don't trust you because you don't respect others who have been here a lot longer than you.  :/

[Anduck]

Vod.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4415201.msg40906371#msg40906371

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Abusing the trust system like what the pharmacist is doing,they want to dominate this forum for the sake of money.

Just FYI, this thread isn't about me, and I can't effectively defend myself when any replies are going to be basically off-topic.  If you have so much of a problem with me, create a new thread in Reputation or bump one of the older ones from members who had an issue--preferably the former.

I don't mind if you sling mud at me for giving scammers and account sellers much-deserved red trust, but if you think that has anything to do with money you're mistaken.  I'm not sure where that claim is coming from.

[xolxol]

Abusing the trust system like what the pharmacist is doing,they want to dominate this forum for the sake of money.

Just FYI, this thread isn't about me, and I can't effectively defend myself when any replies are going to be basically off-topic.  If you have so much of a problem with me, create a new thread in Reputation or bump one of the older ones from members who had an issue--preferably the former.

I don't mind if you sling mud at me for giving scammers and account sellers much-deserved red trust, but if you think that has anything to do with money you're mistaken.  I'm not sure where that claim is coming from.

You are using the DT power to do what you think is right,i saw someone you tagged because of of giving feedbacks to his alts telling people that these are his their alts,you dont deserved your position.

@VOD STFU,
anyone can tell anything here,its none of your business im just telling the truth about the DT members, hiliarious and loyceV are good ones here.
there are no forum rules that limiting the words that should be used here moron,you are old enough but it doesnt mean that you are ahead to anyone. I am a member since 2011 FYI..

[Vod]

@VOD STFU,
anyone can tell anything here,its none of your business im just telling the truth about the DT members, hiliarious and loyceV are good ones here.
there are no forum rules that limiting the words that should be used here moron,you are old enough but it doesnt mean that you are ahead to anyone. I am a member since 2011 FYI..

I like the way your mind works.  Telling me to shut up and then posting anyone can say anything they want. 

[pugman]

You are using the DT power to do what you think is right,i saw someone you tagged because of of giving feedbacks to his alts telling people that these are his their alts,you dont deserved your position.

Isn't that why the trust system was created, if they think a person is a scammer, they should tag them?

TP, you should create your rep thread, if you haven't already, it would be really funny to read people saying stuff about you.

anyone can tell anything here,its none of your business im just telling the truth about the DT members, hiliarious and loyceV are good ones here.
there are no forum rules that limiting the words that should be used here moron,you are old enough but it doesnt mean that you are ahead to anyone. I am a member since 2011 FYI..

So you're protecting your account, but you're not telling the truth, by no means. You're just going everywhere and telling people to shut up and the usual "fuck you" statement. If you really think anybody is abusing the trust system, create a thread in Reputation.

Edit: fixed typo.

[Quickseller]

I find it interesting that Anduck has received multiple ratings for what was effectively backing out of his auction a single time, yet when Minerjones backs out of six of his auctions, he maintains an unblemished trust rating.

It remains my opinion that Anduck should compensate the winner of his auction (or agree to sell the coin on terms similar to his auction), however I also believe there should be consistency in giving out these types of ratings.